Contributors can still contribute patch files via JIRA as we’ve done for many years, no reason to change that.
Using github pull requests is for the day-to-day core development team to move quickly while still reviewing what we do. Every useful output of that effort will land in our git repository (the fixes / features themselves) or the mailing list (the review comments). I share your general concern about depending on non-ASF infrastructure, but in this case it is transient (github can go offline or out of business after we’ve merged pull requests to git-wip-us without affecting us) and replaceable with some effort. I’ve seen Gerrit a bit and I like it, fwiw. World-weary comments like "And I am tired none pay attention to such detail" is neither constructive nor fair, it would be nice to conduct at least one discussion on dev@ without them. B. On 19 Feb 2014, at 15:58, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Young <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2/19/14, 10:06 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 19 February 2014 15:56, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 19 February 2014 15:25, Robert Samuel Newson <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. It's misleading for folks that stumble on it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 14:22, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Should we decommission our Review Board instance? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> well nobody really tried it ... >>>>> >>>>> There is apparently some possibilities to bind automatically the >>>>> review to review board, but not sure if it's feasible on apache. Also >>>>> not sure It's the right tool, I preferred gerrit because it is abel to >>>>> handle automatically the PRs from github. >>>>> >>>>> It would be good to have the PR directly on apache. So people don't >>>>> have to register to a privately held service just to review a code. >>>>> Anyway. At first maybe people could really try the tool before taking >>>>> any decision. I will try, myself when I am back in 2 weeks -if it's >>>>> still there -. Waiting for my flight right now. >>>>> >>>>> - benoit >>>> >>>> >>>> maybe the fact that nobody tried to us it is a sign, that it is (at least >>>> for now) not the right tool for the job? The efforts to use github for >>>> reviews has for me (at least for now) shown, that this could lead into >>>> the >>>> right direction. >>>> >>>> Save travels :) >>>> >>> My concern is that it force people to go on a privately held service >>> (and encouraging people to use it). Having notifications on the ml is >>> awesome but not enough imo. >> >> >> We'll always be dependent on something. The Apache Foundation's been OK with >> the use of Github (afaik), so I don't see a problem with continuing. We're >> not at risk of loosing code. We get a simpler, more familiar process for new >> devs--something we need more of! And one of the simplest code review and >> sharing available with no more maintenance time required from us or the >> Foundation. > > Beeing able to use github is not the same, as beeing forced to use > github. (Off topic: I choose to be dependent on, not the contrary). > > I am personally tired to see all this history going in the hand of a > privately held company.. And I am tired none pay attention to such > detail. > > Anyway, I would prefer to let the choice to people and having a > channel between the tools. If we also get the diff from the PRs in the > mailing list and if people are able to answer to them without needing > to open an account on github, then all my concerns are gone. > > - benoit
